Vulnérabilité sociale et risques dans l’Assistance Sociale au Brésil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article a pour objectif de présenter certains aspects de la politique d’assistance sociale au Brésil, en discutant des notions de vulnérabilité et de risque social qui sont évoqués dans les documents du Système Unique d’Assistance Sociale (SUS). Dans ce contexte, il se concentre sur les effets qui émergent de l’utilisation de ces notions dans la vie quotidienne des professionnels dans leurs interventions auprès des familles. À partir d’une lecture institutionnaliste, ainsi qu’avec les apports de Deleuze, Guattari et Foucault, le texte problématise les risques présents dans ces effets qui peuvent rendre les professionnels vulnérables lorsque le manque de connaissances peut diminuer la capacité des équipes, mais aussi des familles à être actives et autonomes. Ces risques sont : le risque de psychologisation, le risque de disqualification, le risque de surcharge des femmes et le risque de résonance de la vulnérabilité. Ces risques peuvent cacher des pratiques morales et tutélaires empêchant les relations de promotion sociale.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".